(PC) Marquette v. Negouchi et al, No. 2:2014cv01790 - Document 54 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 9/18/2015 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 53 are ADOPTED in FULL; Plaintiff's 26 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED as MOOT. (Reader, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Marquette v. Negouchi et al Doc. 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT MARQUETTE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:14-cv-01790 MCE DAD P v. ORDER NEGOUCHI, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 29, 2015, the magistrate judge filed Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 21 53) that were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections to the Findings and 22 Recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No party has filed objections to the 23 Findings and Recommendations. Although it appears from the file that Plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 24 25 recommendations was returned as undeliverable, Plaintiff was properly served. It is Plaintiff’s 26 responsibility to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local 27 Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the Findings and Recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 3 ORDERED that: 4 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed July 29, 2015 (ECF No. 53) are ADOPTED IN FULL. 6 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 26) is DENIED as moot. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: September 18, 2015 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
